12,000

We have over 12,000 students, from over 100 countries, within one of the safest campuses in the UK

93%

93% of Lancaster students go into work or further study within six months of graduating

Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The Structure and Function of Spontaneous Analo...
View graph of relations

« Back

The Structure and Function of Spontaneous Analogising in Domain-Based Problem Solving.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Associated organisational unit

Journal publication date08/2007
JournalThinking and Reasoning
Journal number3
Volume13
Number of pages22
Pages273-294
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

Laboratory-based studies of problem solving suggest that transfer of solution principles from an analogue to a target arises only minimally without the presence of directive hints. Recently, however, real-world studies indicate that experts frequently and spontaneously use analogies in domain-based problem solving. There is also some evidence that in certain circumstances domain novices can draw analogies designed to illustrate arguments. It is less clear, however, whether domain novices can invoke analogies in the sophisticated manner of experts to enable them to progress problem solving. In the current study groups of novices and experts tackled large-scale management problems. Spontaneous analogising was observed in both conditions, with no marked differences between expertise levels in the frequency, structure or function of analogising. On average four analogies were generated by groups per hour, with significantly more relational mappings between analogue and target being produced than superficial object-and-attribute mappings. Analogising served two different purposes: problem solving (dominated by relational mappings), and illustration (which for novices was dominated by object-and-attribute mappings). Overall, our novices showed a sophistication in domain-based analogical reasoning that is usually only observed with experts, in addition to a sensitivity to the pragmatics of analogy use.

Bibliographic note

The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Thinking and Reasoning, 13 (3), 2007, © Informa Plc